Your comments make sense and are logical, however very little in this situation has followed a logical path. What really gets me is why, after 6 months, was she only able to come up with a partial opinion on just one patent? The attorneys agreed that if the RULINGS(not opinions) on the first TWO patents were dispositive, that there was no need to look at the remaining 6. Instead she decided to just address one aspect of one of the patents. It is difficult to imagine that she and her clerks are both intelligent and spiteful enough to orchestrate this farse. I think it is more likely that she is intimidated by the situation given her past record in such matters and is trying to get the parties to work things out without her having to stick her neck fully out. Seemingly, she has done enough though to expose her lack of understanding of the technology. Her partial opinion has, at least temporarily, hurt our stock price but may or may not have a long term detrimental effect. We will hear SOMETHING in the next two weeks, but this is probably just a small part of the ongoing process that has a ways to go before it really becomes clear. I am very much looking forward to hearing DM's response. That seems to be a tipping point in the overall picture to me.